Pay Attention All Golf Nuts!

I ended up today with 2 all-access Patron Passes AND 2 single-day practice round tickets for the Memorial Golf Tournament at Muirfield Country Club in Dublin, Ohio in early June. Yes, Tiger Woods and all the usual suspects will be there.  Since I can't use these tickets, I posted them on eBay this afternoon.  If you're a golf fan I'd encourage you to bid on these splendid tickets - if not for you and your wife (or golfing buddy) then for me!

It's my first foray into selling anything on eBay, so I'll probably get taken to the woodshed over the deal, but one guy's loss is another's gain I suppose. Yeah, I just checked and there have been no bids yet - but there are still 4 days and 18 hours left!

My plan "B" if they don't sell is to convince the groundwater district board that the groundwater conditions in Dublin, Ohio must be checked out to insure their sustainability.  Yeah, that should work!

What Are They Thinking?

Just ran across a story from Helena, Montana this morning where a judge has ruled that pumping groundwater, in the recovery process of coalbed methane, just to put it into surface pits and evaporate it is a waste of water and in Montana is unconstitutional.  This makes sense to me.

However, a state administrator says the ruling only deals with the mechanical means to speed up the natural evaporative process, and not the pits themselves.  As such, if anyone chooses to water cattle or horses out of such a pond, the water would be "beneficially used" and the pit and practice would be OK.

I must ask:  How much water will cattle and horses drink from a 50 acre-feet sized pit?  If they drink it all, I'd agree, but really...  Later in the article a 2003 study is quoted as saying some 58 billion cubic yards of groundwater would need to be pumped to develop the methane from just one region of the state.  Wow, that's a lot of cattle and horses!

I can't imagine the judge was referring to just the sprayers that accelerate the evaporation.  If he did, shame on him.  If the administrator is mis-reading the ruling, shame on him.  Evaporation is a consumptive water use and needs to be recognized as such. 

Finally, the article didn't discuss the quality of the water too much, but did say it would be likely to increase salts in the rivers if discharged directly there.  Regardless of its quality, this volume of water will eventually be desired and made usable - I guarantee it.

Conservation, Use It Or Lose It, and Abandonment

Darn it!  Kansas had a pretty good conservation program going with the Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP) until it was eliminated on December 31, 2009 for lack of funding.  This program allowed water rights in good standing to contract with the state to conserve water (not pump it).  The contract was from 5 to 10 years in length, was only available where no new water rights were approvable, and did not have any enrollment fee.  Being under contract with Kansas, the years of non-use counted as "due and sufficient cause" and could not be used for abandonment purposes.  This approach clearly extended the potential abandonment window for non-use well beyond the statutorily set 5 years, but it had an actual time limit after which the water right would again be subject to abandonment for non-use.  For those unfamiliar with the concept of abandonment, it prevents persons from holding onto unused water rights at the exclusion of others who want to use the state's water, tends to make sure the state's water gets beneficially used and prevents the long-term speculation of water rights.  

In trying to replace WRCP with some other conservation program funded some other way, several approaches were started through the Legislative and Rule making process by independent entities.  What came out of all these efforts was a new statute that makes it a matter of law that non-use by any water right in areas closed to new development (as long as the well is maintained) is "due and sufficient cause" for non-use and the water right cannot be abandoned.  On the surface this sounds innocuous enough - and certainly in the favor of water right owners who don't want to pump the right, but want to retain it.  Remember, a water right in Kansas is a real property right (in perpetuity) to the use of the state's water so long as the conditions of the water right are adhered to.

However, we've just created a situation, in closed areas, where no water right will ever get abandoned except by voluntary action by the owner - as long as the well is maintained.  Not so much a problem today, but eventually these non-used rights will be involved in any management solutions applied to the area.  If water right reductions are ever made, those who have been using the water all along will have to cut deeper in order to equitably share the pain with those who haven't been using the water at all, and may never do so again.  I suspect there will be active discussions at that time.  Of course, maybe water markets were invented for this exact reason.  It's all a matter of perspective.

Groundwater as a Private Right

I can't resist this one.  As many know, Texas has long treated groundwater as a private right with their "Rule of Capture" which basically says anyone can use the water as much as they like - even to the detriment of others. It has often been called the "Rule of the Biggest Pump".  While it has certain advantages, it also guarantees that every drop of water can be used.

With a case now in the Texas Supreme Court (Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day) the issue of who owns the water is expected to get more court direction when the ruling is released.  Mr. Day (who has incidently passed away) argues that the Edwards Aquifer Authority can't restrict him from using groundwater from under his land, while EAA argues that they have the right to manage the groundwater and his diversion will overtax the supply. 

I ran across a set of statements made by a Texas Association which I find interesting.  This group is asking the Texas Legislature (presumably anticipating a court decision to the contrary) to clearly make groundwater a private landowner right.  The statements are:

“Private landowner ownership of groundwater encourages good stewardship and promotes accountability.”

"Private ownership provides more certainty and balance in water planning for the future.”

“As the demand for groundwater in Texas increases, it is important that groundwater continues to be recognized and reaffirmed as vested, real property of private landowners.”

“... supports reasonable regulation of groundwater so private landowners are treated fairly and afforded due process, property rights are respected, and all private landowners maintain the ability to use groundwater for any beneficial use."

Inquiring minds are likely to wonder how unrestricted access to water by all landowners can provide more certainty in water planning, better accountability, and at the same time respect all property rights.

While this case is expected to make or break local groundwater management authority in Texas, I halfway expect the court to render a ruling that continues to leave wiggle room on each side of the issue.  This is the way Texans roll!

"Time Running out for the Ogallala" Article

Dave Thier just posted an AOL.news item on the Ogallala Aquifer that is the typical gloom and doom approach - the implication is that the entire Ogallala is doomed to go dry in 20 years or less.  The picture here is from the article, and is identified as being an irrigation system near Hoxie, KS - within our GMD here in NW Kansas. 

While not stated as such in this article, I wonder if the picture is presented by the author as an example of the wasteful irrigation methods being used that are the cause of the doom cited in the article.  This is usually the case in most pieces I read on this subject.  It could also be that Mr. Thier intended nothing more than to supply a striking picture of an irrigation system to add interest to his piece - it is a nice photo.  If this is the case then I apologize for overreacting.

In any event, this kind of irrigation in GMD 4 is rare - in fact, this is the only big gun system we staff at GMD 4 are aware of.  Secondly, this photo was taken along the tree-lined banks of the Solomon River East of Hoxie - the water source being the alluvial aquifer associated with the Solomon - not the Ogallala.  Thirdly, the irrigated fields in this area are very small and irregular and don't lend themselves to other more common irrigation systems.  And forthly (and finally) I must say again that inefficient irrigation is NOT the cause of the declines in any aquifer we have in NW Kansas.  It is the consumptive crop water use that occurs virtually equally under every irrigation system that is the cause.

Anyway, back to the reason for this blog.  While many areas of the Ogallala are declining faster than most would think prudent, this is not the case everywhere.  Our GMD average decline rate in the Ogallala for the past 30 years has been .6 feet per year.  The range is from 2 feet per year to areas that are increasing in saturated thickness.  We are in an area of the Ogallala that I think is on the low side of all the average statistics cited for the full aquifer - and certainly far better off than all the areas the press likes to focus on - these being the worst of the worst.

Anyway, it'd be refreshing if the press would spend a little more time characterizing the aquifer more accurately so that their readers get a truer sense of the situation.  Of course, in the end, it's usually a matter of reader perspective.  If you find any level of decline appalling, then our condition is also incredually unacceptable.  Comments?

Groundwater Folks Convene - GMDA

The Groundwater Management Districts Association (GMDA) will hold its Summer meeting in Little Rock, AR on June 6-8, 2010 at the Capital Hotel.  You are invited to attend and meet a lot of the groundwater folks from Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi and a smattering of other places where local GMDs exist.

During the session, which is refreshingly informal (and I mean this literally) each state will have a presentation on:  a) irrigation methods in their state; 2) how to be more efficient with irrigation; and 3) how conservation programs contribute to reducing groundwater use.  As an added bonus, Keith Admire from the NRCS National Water Management Center will also present.

There'll also be presentations from: Todd Fugitt, Arkansas Water Resources; Richard Coupe, USGS Groundwater Modeling; and the Corps of Engineers on the Lower Arkansas River.  Many don't realize the extent to which Arkansas irrigates from groundwater - it's an eye-popping irrigation state in terms of acres irrigated.

Contact (email) Judith McGaugh for more information.  Also consider visiting the GMDA Website for information on GMDA or this conference.

Looks like the YMD Joint Water Management District has put together another great session.  

One More Irrigation Efficiency Technical Point - Evaporation

Also in the irrigation efficiency debate, we must remember that evaporation is a consumptive water use (CU).  Normally crop water use (transpiration) and evaporation (from applying water and from leaf surfaces and soil) are lumped together because it is difficult to separately quantify the two values.  Together these values are called evapotranspiration, and again, are a consumptive water use.  However, of any evapotranspiration value used to descibe an irrigation water balance, transpiration is by far the larger portion of that value and can approach or even exceed 90%. 

Since irrigation efficiency improvements reduce non-consumptive water applications AND evaporation, most assume that these upgrades do in fact reduce CU and thus conserve water.  I have been called on this point before, and technically this is true enough.

However, most continue to deny that CU increases under most of these conversions and continue to point to the evaporation reductions.  Our findings show that CU increases do occur, and easily offset the evaporation reductions - resulting in a net increase of water use.  Normally CU will increase in one or more of three ways:  additional acres are irrigated; a higher water consumptive crop(s) is grown on the same acres; or more of the same crop is produced on the same acres - all made possible by the "saved" water resulting from the increased irrigation efficiency.

Now, to be perfectly honest, not every irrigation conversion to a higher efficiency system increases CU.  Some irrigators can't add acres, don't grow different crops, or don't manage to increase yields.  But most do.  So again, we find that the net change of a number of conversions is in fact an increase in CU.  While it's not an obscene increase (kinda subtle, actually) my point is that the amount of money applied to doing this in the name of "saving water" in water short areas is obscene - especially when it actually makes the problem just a tad worse.  The money can almost always be better spent on other solutions to reducing water use.

So wrapping up:  1) irrigation efficiency conversions can in the exact right hydrologic conditions conserve water, but these conditions don't exist very often (see April 19, 2010 blog); 2) they often reduce evaporation (consumptive) water losses, but these savings are small and are most often easily offset by practices that increase CU; and 3) the cost of this approach to "save water" is more often than not very poorly spent money.  Comments?